Essure: A Review Six Years Later

Efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of the Essure™ procedure

The Essure™ system for permanent contraception was developed as a less invasive method of female sterilization. Placement of the Essure™ coil involves a hysteroscopic transcervical technique. This procedure can be done in a variety of settings and with a range of anesthetic options. More than eight years have passed since the US Food and Drug Administration approval of Essure™. Much research has been done to evaluate placement success, adverse outcomes, satisfaction, pain, and the contraceptive efficacy of the Essure™. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available literature regarding the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction with this new sterilization technique.

Multimodality imaging of the essure permanent birth control device: emphasis on commonly overlooked abnormalities

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this pictorial essay is to review the imaging findings of normally and abnormally positioned Essure permanent birth control devices across the different imaging techniques and to show common sites of device migration.

CONCLUSION

The Essure device is easily visualized on all imaging techniques, and radiologists should be familiar with its appearance and be able to identify cases of device migration on ultrasound and hysterosalpingography that would suggest malfunction.

Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation

BACKGROUND

Female sterilisation is the most popular contraceptive method worldwide. Several techniques are described in the literature, however only few of them are commonly used and properly evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the different tubal occlusion techniques in terms of major and minor morbidity, failure rates (pregnancies), technical failures and difficulties, and women's and surgeons' views.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Originally MEDLINE and The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched. For the 2010 update, searches of Popline, Lilacs, Pubmed and The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were performed. Reference lists of identified trials were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing different techniques for tubal sterilisation, regardless of the route of Fallopian tube access or the method of anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials under consideration were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion. Nine relevant studies were included and the results were stratified in five groups: tubal ring versus clip, modified Pomeroy versus electrocoagulation, tubal ring versus electrocoagulation, modified Pomeroy versus Filshie clip and Hulka versus Filshie clip. Results are reported as odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Tubal ring versus clip: Minor morbidity was higher in the ring group (Peto OR 2.15; 95% CI 1.22, 3.78). Technical difficulties were found less frequent in the clip group ( Peto OR 3.87; 95% CI 1.90, 7.89). There was no difference in failure rates between the two groups (Peto OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.28, 1.76). Pomeroy versus electrocoagulation: Women undergoing modified Pomeroy technique had higher major morbidity than those with the electrocoagulation technique (Peto OR 2.87; 95% CI 1.13, 7.25). Postoperative pain was more frequent in the Pomeroy group (Peto OR 3.85; 95% CI 2.91, 5.10). Tubal ring versus electrocoagulation: Post operative pain was more frequently reported in the tubal ring group. No pregnancies were reported. Pomeroy versus Filshie clip: In the only trial comparing the two interventions only one pregnancy was reported in the Pomeroy group after follow-up for 24 months. No differences were found when comparing Hulka versus Filshie clip in the only study that compared these two devices.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Electrocoagulation was associated with less morbidity including post-operative pain when compared with the modified Pomeroy and tubal ring methods, despite the risk of burns to the small bowel. The small sample size and the relative short period of follow-up in these studies limited the power to show clinical or statistical differences for rare outcomes such as failure rates. Aspects such as training, costs and maintenance of the equipment may be important factors in deciding which method to choose.

Hysterosalpingogram: an essential examination following Essure hysteroscopic sterilisation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe our experience of imaging following hysteroscopic sterilisation with the Essure (Conceptus Inc., Mountain View, San Carlos, CA) microinsert, and to underline the importance of a carefully performed follow-up hysterosalpingogram (HSG) in the management of these patients.

METHODS

18 women underwent the procedure and all returned for follow-up HSG. A standard HSG technique was used and views were acquired to establish microinsert position and tubal occlusion.

RESULTS

In 16 of the 18 women, adequate microinsert positioning and bilateral tubal occlusion was present. In one woman, a unilateral microinsert occluded the fallopian tube, whereas the other fallopian tube was ligated with a clip. The final patient underwent two studies; both showed well-positioned microinserts but unilateral free spill from the right fallopian tube. There are no reported pregnancies thus far.

CONCLUSION

Essure sterilisation coils have a unique appearance when radiographed and are an effective means of permanently occluding the fallopian tubes. HSG is a rapid and safe method of confirming satisfactory placement and tubal occlusion. Non-HSG imaging techniques are suboptimal at detecting patent fallopian tubes and expose patients to the risk of an unwanted and potentially complicated pregnancy.

Unilateral placement of the Adiana device after failed bilateral placement of the Essure device for hysteroscopic sterilization

This case report outlines the successful completion of hysteroscopic sterilization using the Adiana Permanent Contraception device (Hologic, Inc., Bedford, MA) after failure of multiple attempts to bilaterally place the Essure Permanent Birth Control system (Conceptus Inc., Mountain View, CA). The patient desired hysteroscopic sterilization using the Essure system. Although the first coil was easily placed in the right ostium, the second coil could not be passed beyond 2.4 cm into the left ostium. Inasmuch as the Adiana system needs to be passed only 1.4 cm into the ostium, this was found to be adequate for appropriate placement of the implant. Adiana may be an effective alternative to Essure, especially in patients in whom tubal stricture or spasm prevents Essure placement.

Techniques for the interruption of tubal patency for female sterilisation

BACKGROUND

Female sterilization is the most popular contraceptive method worldwide. Several techniques are described in the literature, however only few of them are commonly used and properly evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the different tubal occlusion techniques in terms of major and minor morbidity, failure rates (pregnancies), technical failures and difficulties and women's and surgeons' views.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register has been searched. A search of the reference lists of identified trials was performed. An additional MEDLINE search was done using an Internet search service Pub Med.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials comparing different techniques for tubal sterilization, regardless of the way of entry in the abdominal cavity or the method of anesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials under consideration were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion. Nine relevant studies were included and the results were stratified in five groups: tubal ring versus clip, modified Pomeroy versus electrocoagulation, tubal ring versus electrocoagulation, modified Pomeroy versus Filshie clip and Hulka versus Filshie clip. Results are reported as odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Tubal ring versus clip: Minor morbidity was higher in the ring group (Peto OR 2.15; 95% CI 1.22, 3.78). Technical difficulties were found less frequent in the clip group ( Peto OR 3.87; 95% CI 1.90, 7.89). There was no difference in failure rates between the two groups (Peto OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.28, 1.76). Pomeroy versus electrocoagulation: Women undergoing modified Pomeroy technique had higher major morbidity than with electrocoagulation technique (Peto OR 2.87; 95% CI 1.13, 7.25). Postoperative pain was more frequent in the Pomeroy group (Peto OR 3.85; 95% CI 2.91, 5.10). Tubal ring versus electrocoagulation: Post operative pain was more frequently reported in the tubal ring group. No pregnancies were reported. Pomeroy versus Filshie clip: In the trial comparing the two interventions only one pregnancy was reported in the Pomeroy group after follow-up for 24 months. No differences were found when comparing Hulka versus Filshie clip in the only study that compared these two devices (Toplis 1988).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Electrocoagulation was associated with less morbidity when compared with tubal ring and other methods. However the risk of burns to the small bowel might be a serious criticism of the approach. The small sample size and the relative short period of follow-up in these studies limited the power to show clinical or statistical differences for rare outcomes such as failure rates. Aspects such as training, costs and maintenance of the equipment may be important factors in deciding which method to choose.